Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

fash

tuxy wrote: »

When was the charge for Boy B also upgraded to include rape?

True enough - although I suspect prosecution could have gone for (and considered) conspiracy on that charge also and didn't do so for economy and admittedly further away from the available facts in relation to boy B which would weaken the conspiracy to murder charge.

tuxy

retro:electro wrote: »

He could have bought the new phone at any stage.

Link to info about him being suspected of buying a phone his parents didn't know about?

retro:electro

GarIT wrote: »

Video of the sexual assault/murder or something else? Which report is this in?

It’s not in any report. This poster is having trouble separating opinions and speculation from fact.

Lucuma

He is being sarcastic!

I'm waiting to see the farcical sentence they get. I'm guessing 6 years out in about 4.

Lucuma

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm waiting to see the farcical sentence they get. I'm guessing 6 years out in about 4.

I assume A will get a longer sentence than B

Franz Von Peppercorn II

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s not in any report. This poster is having trouble separating opinions and speculation from fact.

He’s not. He’s doing a bad job of exaggerating other people’s speculations though, and probably needs to get himself a sarcasm tag.

iamwhoiam

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

He’s not. He’s doing a bad job of exaggerating other people’s speculations though, and probably needs to get himself a sarcasm tag.

Or just not bother posting sarcasm. It rarely works on the written word

forumdedum

"During the trial, in the absence of the jury, his defence would attempt to prevent the boots being introduced as evidence. Patrick Gageby, Boy A’s barrister, argued that they had been obtained under false pretences and that Det Garda Newton was uninterested in investigating the alleged assault and interested in the case only as it related to Ana.
He asked the detective why she would seize clothes when they had already been washed. Clothing can still yield forensic clues after washing, Det Garda Newton responded." - from The Irish Times today.

I knew that clothing can still contain forensic clues after washing. Boy A's barrister didn't know this? I'm amazed (though not amazed at the same time)

Gadgetman496

forumdedum wrote: »

"During the trial, in the absence of the jury, his defence would attempt to prevent the boots being introduced as evidence. Patrick Gageby, Boy A’s barrister, argued that they had been obtained under false pretences and that Det Garda Newton was uninterested in investigating the alleged assault and interested in the case only as it related to Ana.
He asked the detective why she would seize clothes when they had already been washed. Clothing can still yield forensic clues after washing, Det Garda Newton responded." - from The Irish Times today.

I knew that clothing can still contain forensic clues after washing. Boy A's barrister didn't know this? I'm amazed (though not amazed at the same time)

Patrick Gageby knew well but was probably chancing his arm in a desperate throw of the dice.

forumdedum

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Patrick Gageby knew well but was probably chancing his arm in a desperate throw of the dice.

Desperate indeed.

tayto lover

forumdedum wrote: »

"During the trial, in the absence of the jury, his defence would attempt to prevent the boots being introduced as evidence. Patrick Gageby, Boy A’s barrister, argued that they had been obtained under false pretences and that Det Garda Newton was uninterested in investigating the alleged assault and interested in the case only as it related to Ana.
He asked the detective why she would seize clothes when they had already been washed. Clothing can still yield forensic clues after washing, Det Garda Newton responded." - from The Irish Times today.

I knew that clothing can still contain forensic clues after washing. Boy A's barrister didn't know this? I'm amazed (though not amazed at the same time)

That was an attempt to get the Garda to admit that she suspected Boy A of being involved in Ana’s disappearance and as such the clothes were seized illegally or under a false pretense and any evidence obtained from them would then have been inadmissible. The Garda had her facts right and he got nowhere.

forumdedum

tayto lover wrote: »

That was an attempt to get the Garda to admit that she suspected Boy A of being involved in Ana’s disappearance and as such the clothes were seized illegally or under a false pretense and any evidence obtained from them would then have been inadmissible. The Garda had her facts right and he got nowhere.

Intelligent Garda. I like this.

Necro

Lucuma wrote: »

I assume A will get a longer sentence than B

If it's anything less than life for Boy A it will be an absolute disgrace given he was found guilty of not just murder but aggravated sexual assault which in itself is a heinous crime. Consecutive sentencing would be helpful here in keeping this animal in a cage but the judiciary don't like that here in Ireland.

Boy B should get the same but I see him being released by the time he's 21 at the latest unfortunately.

Nobelium

Necro wrote: »

If it's anything less than life for Boy A it will be an absolute disgrace given he was found guilty of not just murder but aggravated sexual assault which in itself is a heinous crime. Consecutive sentencing would be helpful here in keeping this animal in a cage but the judiciary don't like that here in Ireland.

Boy B should get the same but I see him being released by the time he's 21 at the latest unfortunately.

In reality though, like the Bulger murderers, the so called liberal left will ensure these lads are out by their late teens / early twenties at most, after some cosy care home with PlayStation, pool and xbox all day, and like one of the Bulger murderers possibly some regular sex with the female social workers "looking after" him. They will then be set up with new identities, homes, and jobs . . .all at the taxpayers expense.

splinter65

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Patrick Gageby knew well but was probably chancing his arm in a desperate throw of the dice.

It was well worth a try.

spurious

Does the law not say the sentences get reviewed at 18? I thought I read that somewhere.

tayto lover

forumdedum wrote: »

Intelligent Garda. I like this.

The Garda investigation team had their case well prepared thankfully and there were no slip-ups and as a result these murderers are no longer on the loose.

The defence teams did their best to pick holes in the case too I thought like the above points.

Boggles

Nobelium wrote: »

In reality though, like the Bulger murderers, the so called liberal left will ensure these lads are out by their late teens / early twenties at most

It was David Blunkett who approved their release.

David Blunkett told the head of the Prison Service to call in the Army and "machine-gun" rioting inmates to regain control of a jail in 2002, reports say.

Cuckhold Snowflake Liberal all right. :rolleyes:

Nobelium

Boggles wrote: »

It was David Blunkett who approved their release.

Cuckhold Snowflake Liberal all right. :rolleyes:

Still was done with massive pressure put on from the liberals, and will be done in this case as well. It's all about "rights" for the murderers and none for the victim or their families.

Boggles

Nobelium wrote: »

Still was done with massive pressure put on from the liberals, and will be done in this case as well. It's all about "rights" for the murderers and none for the victim or their families.

Have you tangible evidence of this massive pressure?

The only "organised" pressure I remember was coming from the redtops whipping up the knuckle draggers.

Nobelium

Boggles wrote: »

Have you tangible evidence of this massive pressure?

The only "organised" pressure I remember was coming from the redtops whipping up the knuckle draggers.

How long do you think these two murderers should be locked up for, and in what conditions and why ?

Calltocall

I find it difficult to have much sympathy for the parents of the perpetrators for a number of reasons but mainly because

A. During boy B’s numerous interviews with the gardai it would of become clear he was lying, changing story when the guards had him cornered etc etc, the guards knew he was lying and continued to probe and well done to them to get him to eventually fess up but even then I’m not convinced he told them the full truth. Where were his parents during all of this, why didn’t they intervene and basically grab him by the scruff of the neck and tell him enough of this **** you tell the guards the truth and face the consequences of what you did to that poor girl but no instead they sat back and allowed him to concoct his web of lies under their watchful eye, it’s shameful, you know your kids and you know when they are lying yet they allowed him to continue with his little charade. If that’s what their parenting amounted to then it’s no surprise what they are left with, an empty vessel of a child who does not fear telling lies and has no core sense of human decency /values/beliefs because he wasn’t taught any and without these we’re basically animals. For this I have little to no sympathy for them.

B. Boy B’s Fathers outburst in court summed it all up for me and it’s a true sign of degenerate behavior when rather than accept responsibility for your own actions you pass the blame onto others, he had no sense of sympathy for the victim who’s child had been brutally murdered, all the hallmarks of a degenerate no wonder the kid ended up in the situation he’s in when there’s no leadership from his parents

Again, I’ve no sympathy for them.

Boggles

Nobelium wrote: »

How long do you think these two murderers should be locked up for, and in what conditions and why ?

Hang on there E-Hard, you might have a stab at my question.

Here it is again

Have you tangible evidence of this massive pressure?

I hate condensing debate down to one word answers, but a yes or no will suffice.

Then we will start fantasizing about how best to punish children who commit horrible crimes.

Nobelium

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on there E-Hard, you might have a stab at my question.

Here it is again

I hate condensing debate down to one word answers, but a yes or no will suffice.

Then we will start fantasizing about how best to punish children who commit horrible crimes.

The fact that he released them early, despite being politically aligned otherwise according to you, is the evidence.

Now to the question you tried to avoid, and will continue to avoid, but I will keep asking untill you do answer it truthfully :

How long do you think these two murderers should be locked up for, and in what conditions and why ?

McCrack

Necro wrote: »

If it's anything less than life for Boy A it will be an absolute disgrace given he was found guilty of not just murder but aggravated sexual assault which in itself is a heinous crime. Consecutive sentencing would be helpful here in keeping this animal in a cage but the judiciary don't like that here in Ireland.

Boy B should get the same but I see him being released by the time he's 21 at the latest unfortunately.

It's not possible in this jurisdiction to put a sentence consecutive to a life sentence so the sentencing judge will not have that option

The Rooster

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm waiting to see the farcical sentence they get. I'm guessing 6 years out in about 4.

There is a very comparable Irish case.

(This is from memory, so some details might be slightly wrong, but overall it’s thereabouts)

Boy in Laois aged 15 horrifically murdered a younger child in the early 2000s.
Judge gave a life sentence to be reviewed after 10 years.
Defense appealed on the grounds sentence was too severe for a minor.
Sentence was upheld on appeal.
Offender moved to a prison shortly after he turned 18.
Judge reviewed case, sentence, behavior, etc after 10 years.
Offender released at some stage during Year 12 of his sentence.

My complete guess for this case is that both will get a sentence up to their 18th birthday, which will be then reviewed at that time and that Boy A will end up serving about 12-15 years and B will be released before going to proper prison.

Gadgetman496

The Rooster wrote: »

There is a very comparable Irish case.

(This is from memory, so some details might be slightly wrong, but overall it’s thereabouts)

Boy in Laois aged 15 horrifically murdered a younger child in the early 2000s.
Judge gave a life sentence to be reviewed after 10 years.
Defense appealed on the grounds sentence was too severe for a minor.
Sentence was upheld on appeal.
Offender moved to a prison shortly after he turned 18.
Judge reviewed case, sentence, behavior, etc after 10 years.
Offender released at some stage during Year 12 of his sentence.

My complete guess for this case is that both will get a sentence up to their 18th birthday, which will be then reviewed at that time and that Boy A will end up serving about 12-15 years and B will be released before going to proper prison.

Is this that case? And he was named!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/boy-16-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-laois-murder-1.992418

Stheno

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Is this that case? And he was named!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/boy-16-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-laois-murder-1.992418

Yes that's the case

Boggles

Nobelium wrote: »

The fact that he released them early, despite being politically aligned otherwise according to you, is the evidence.

Well no.

Detaining them would have been the populous choice. He had a notorious hard line on justice, freeing the most infamous child killers in British History would not have garnered him votes.

Your talking complete pony.

Nobelium wrote: »

Now to the question you tried to avoid, and will continue to avoid, but I will keep asking untill you do answer it truthfully :

How long do you think these two murderers should be locked up for, and in what conditions and why ?

Depends on the mitigating factors, if there is indeed any.

But I'm guessing any opinion I give that differs from yours will just get be labelled a liberal snowflake, would that be accurate?